Politics - Page 1661 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic - Entertainment/News

  #16601  
Old 01.07.2019, 08:27 AM
LesterHayes's Avatar
LesterHayes LesterHayes is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 21.08.2012
Posts: 3,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
even Hunt now seems 100% committed to getting Brexit delivered somehow by end of October and then we can move on with actually mapping out the UK future.almost mind blowing to think this deal is just suppose to be the "short-term" agreement that should be replaced in the coming years.

as great as a GE would be it would be madness for the 2 main parties so would be entertaining to see what kind of coalition of chaos we might be left with but think you can have a say again in 2022'ish.
Yes, but that first sentence Lee? It will basically need the EU to do the precise opposite of what it has said it will do and open up negotiations. And then it'll need to install a load of people to negotiate with?

Yeah. Not gonna happen is it?

Boris and Jeremy are just playing to the gallery really. I cannot believe that they actually don't know just how difficult delivering on their promise might be? The only thing I can think of is that there is some kind of cobbled agreement already available? If not then it really doesn't matter who wins because either one of them will presumably then try to drive the bus over the cliff. I think (hope) at that point then there will be enough principled MP's in the house that put country ahead of party and vote the government down. I've heard anywhere between 2 and 50 when it comes to numbers.

A GE with the Tories trying to out mental the Brexit Party and Labour imploding might just let the Lib Dems and their Remain pledge in? Could happen.
Reply With Quote
  #16602  
Old 02.07.2019, 05:43 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

bit lost on why the Brexit MEP's turned there back today for the EU anthem,if they want to be taken seriously and maybe get involved in talks down the line cheap stunts wont build bridges.

also the Lib Dem MEP's need a talking too.
Reply With Quote
  #16603  
Old 02.07.2019, 05:49 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
bit lost on why the Brexit MEP's turned there back today for the EU anthem,if they want to be taken seriously and maybe get involved in talks down the line cheap stunts wont build bridges.

also the Lib Dem MEP's need a talking too.



well because they are children and think that the EU control us and we have no voice


they wore a t shirt and it was pro the place there were in and showing they are there to work.
Reply With Quote
  #16604  
Old 02.07.2019, 07:45 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
well because they are children and think that the EU control us and we have no voice


they wore a t shirt and it was pro the place there were in and showing they are there to work.
on the Lib Dems there are rules about appropriate clothing which maybe includes slogans that arent pre-watershed here.

with the anthem protest,one who knew the EU had one and the better protest would be to respectfully sit through it or just all get your phones out and play with them while the anthem is playing.

guess it got plenty of coverage so as stunts go it worked.
Reply With Quote
  #16605  
Old 03.07.2019, 10:46 AM
LesterHayes's Avatar
LesterHayes LesterHayes is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 21.08.2012
Posts: 3,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
bit lost on why the Brexit MEP's turned there back today for the EU anthem,if they want to be taken seriously and maybe get involved in talks down the line cheap stunts wont build bridges.

also the Lib Dem MEP's need a talking too.
They were both cheap stunts but, you wont be surprised to hear, I think the Brexit Party peoples was the worse of the two. Presumably these anti EU people are donating their salaries to charity or maybe not taking them at all? I mean that'd be a better protest wouldn't it? How about just not turning up? Or, better yet, why not use your position to force the changes you want to see in the EU, dare I say it, democratically?

Mooning 'Ode to Joy', I ask you...

In other news it looks like Jeremy Hunt is in a bit of a pickle? 6 billion put aside to bail out the farming and fishing industries? If we can bail out the banks, then why not other sectors says Mr Hunt.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...war-chest-help

But weren't we taking back control of our waters Jeremy? Wasn't Brexit a GOOD thing for fishing? If so, why will they need financial support from the Government? I mean I don't know if you ever talked about it but others certainly did:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...p-nigel-farage

Meanwhile Boris's new policy is to look at repealing the Sugar Tax:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...mproves-health

This is Boris in 2015:

"We have more obese adults than we have normally proportioned human beings and that is a quite extraordinary state of affairs. It’s a massive health risk. It’s a matter of social justice. Overwhelmingly the people who will be most affected by an obesity problem will be those on the lowest incomes. That’s why I’m thinking about sugar taxes and whether London should be leading on that."

You probably won't be massively surprised to hear that Boris is now advised by a guy called Will Waldren who, in his capacity as Executive Director at communications firm Edelman, happens to represent Coca Cola?

And that was just yesterdays crazy contradictions?! Only in Brexit Britain....

Last edited by LesterHayes; 03.07.2019 at 11:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16606  
Old 03.07.2019, 01:26 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

lets not bail them out, lets just stop Brexit if thats going to be the cost and spend that money on the NHS instead
Reply With Quote
  #16607  
Old 04.07.2019, 06:12 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

so the high court has released the full ruling in the Boris Johnson case and its ouch for the district judge who really had no reason allowing this garbage to proceed and also rips Marcus Ball.

also the ballots for the next leader of the conservatives have started arriving to the party members just as Hunt has a very bad 24 hours seemingly about Fox hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #16608  
Old 05.07.2019, 11:19 AM
LesterHayes's Avatar
LesterHayes LesterHayes is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 21.08.2012
Posts: 3,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
so the high court has released the full ruling in the Boris Johnson case and its ouch for the district judge who really had no reason allowing this garbage to proceed and also rips Marcus Ball.
Really? Not quite my reading of it?

This is what Lady Justice Rafferty said:

"The problem of false statements in the course of political campaigning is not new and has not been overlooked by parliament. For at least the last 120 or so years parliament has legislated to control certain false campaign statements which it considers an illegal practice.”

And

"there would have been no complaint (if Mr Johnson had used a figure of)£350 million per week gross, or £250 million per week net"

So, it would seem, the Judge was happy to conclude that Boris's statements were, at least, false? What she expects is that the public has access to publicly available statistics and could therefore come to their own conclusions regarding the veracity of statements made by politicians.

If only....

To be fair to you they also concluded that Marcus Ball was politically motivated, like that was ever in doubt, but, so what? As Thomas Mann said, "everything is political". The history of the law is littered with politically motivated precedents. Does Mr Balls motivation actually change the central point of his case? That Boris lied (or at the very least was deliberately disingenuous) about the 350 million? Isn't it now accepted history that that is exactly what he did?

I'm not sure her ruling counts as ripping? Could that adjective be used to describe any legal ruling about anything? Ever?

Last edited by LesterHayes; 05.07.2019 at 11:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16609  
Old 06.07.2019, 04:55 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesterHayes View Post
Really? Not quite my reading of it?

This is what Lady Justice Rafferty said:

"The problem of false statements in the course of political campaigning is not new and has not been overlooked by parliament. For at least the last 120 or so years parliament has legislated to control certain false campaign statements which it considers an illegal practice.”

And

"there would have been no complaint (if Mr Johnson had used a figure of)£350 million per week gross, or £250 million per week net"

So, it would seem, the Judge was happy to conclude that Boris's statements were, at least, false? What she expects is that the public has access to publicly available statistics and could therefore come to their own conclusions regarding the veracity of statements made by politicians.

If only....

To be fair to you they also concluded that Marcus Ball was politically motivated, like that was ever in doubt, but, so what? As Thomas Mann said, "everything is political". The history of the law is littered with politically motivated precedents. Does Mr Balls motivation actually change the central point of his case? That Boris lied (or at the very least was deliberately disingenuous) about the 350 million? Isn't it now accepted history that that is exactly what he did?

I'm not sure her ruling counts as ripping? Could that adjective be used to describe any legal ruling about anything? Ever?
hold on she said the was "no complaint" over using either number so dont see how she concluded that there where any "false" statements(just normal politics) and you miss out the whole chapter on the district judge and how this case should never have made it to any higher court because there was no case and the other party was a total chancer who lied about almost everything.
Reply With Quote
  #16610  
Old 08.07.2019, 11:33 AM
LesterHayes's Avatar
LesterHayes LesterHayes is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 21.08.2012
Posts: 3,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
hold on she said the was "no complaint" over using either number so dont see how she concluded that there where any "false" statements(just normal politics) and you miss out the whole chapter on the district judge and how this case should never have made it to any higher court because there was no case and the other party was a total chancer who lied about almost everything.
Lee, "there would have been no complaint" was the whole quote not there was "no complaint". That is very different.

Justice whatshername is saying that had Johnson used a figure of 350 gross or 250 nett "there would have been no complaint". He didn't use either qualification though did he ergo there should have been cause for complaint because the figure of 350 million is not what we give the EU as the ONS and countless other people have said. Unfortunately the law does not allow prosecution when the actual numbers are in the public domain. Which they were. Just no one actually read them.

The judge also concluded it had not been demonstrated that Mr Johnson made the comments "as he discharged the duties of (his) office".

Really? Did he resign his position during the referendum? Did I miss something?

Also, although Parliament had passed legislation to make it a criminal offence for anyone to make false statements about a candidate during a campaign for the purposes of stopping them being elected the judges concluded that it also had "deliberately excluded" legislating to include false factual statements about statistics within the auspices of the criminal law.

"Parliament twice made a choice not to do precisely that which the interested party now seeks to achieve" they ruled.

If that isn't a legal technicality, I don't know what is? There is no way anyone could read this as an exoneration of Boris. Well, no one except you that is.

Regarding your other comments, personally I don't really care about the judge that passed the case up the ladder. Maybe she was politically motivated too? Maybe she just thought better safe than sorry? Who knows, Case dismissed anyway but I did say I'd withhold judgement until the reasoning was published and the reasoning for dismissing the claim is ultimately on a technical point of law and the presumption the general public actually have minds of their own. Depressingly an awful lot of people (most of them not judges) don't.

As to the guy that brought the case; what did he have to gain apart from notoriety? I can't see a money making scheme behind it unless he was hoping that Boris would buy him off or something? He should have known better; Johnson is more likely to have paid to have him beaten up. In your post you suggest he "was a total chancer who lied about almost everything"?

Example?

Last edited by LesterHayes; 08.07.2019 at 03:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 10:40 PM.